REC AUTOMATION TO SESSION LIVE REWRITE?

hoffman2k · Post by **hoffman2k** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:03 pm

*Cough* *Cough* OSC *Cough*

koneko · Post by **koneko** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:09 pm

hoffman2k wrote:*Cough* *Cough* OSC *Cough*

oh yes please.

leedsquietman · Post by **leedsquietman** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:33 pm

I don't know about the cost of such a project, but given that Steinberg who have a significantly larger number of developers and programmers on hand coded SX from scratch after VST5, there were some great advantages (significantly better audio engine, better looking GUI), but as mentioned a LOT of features went missing and it took more like 4-5 years to get them back into the new architecture.

Macrostructure · Post by **Macrostructure** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:15 pm

I thought your original post made perfect sense and you were just admitting areas where you were perhaps less qualified to comment and being open minded.

I have been wondering whether Live was in need of some partial re-structuring too. I don't want a bug-ridden Live 8 either though, so people making that point are quite correct too.

MIDI is still here after what, 25 years - who'd a thought it? It's not going anywhere fast, in fact it's become totally central with the advent of the burgeoning DAW + MIDI controller market.

Live was not originally coded with extensive MIDI integration in mind at all, it had some basic stuff but the scale of it that we now take for granted was an add-on in Live 4 and there are several important things the current architecture cannot do - MIDI LFOs, access to VST parameters over number 128 and clips on one MIDI track controlling another track's parameters without MIDI loopback, which frankly is a pain in the arse.

It would be good if all tracks (audio and MIDI) had access to all other tracks parameters. This is not stricktly a MIDI issue, but it's another limitation of the current architecture.

So fair point

dcease · Post by **dcease** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:18 pm

i hope music can be made with live 8. everyone knows it's impossible with 1-7.

write your own daws, all you tumors.

dcease · Post by **dcease** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:46 pm

not sure why i was so ranty...

Macrostructure · Post by **Macrostructure** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:50 pm

no problem

dcease · Post by **dcease** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:52 pm

nice tunes, mate

tylenol · Post by **tylenol** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:55 pm

Completely rewriting mature software from scratch is almost always a horrible software engineering mistake, for many reasons. Even in cases where it is necessary, it drastically increases the time to the next update, and it is very expensive. Even though the story is that they had no choice but to do a rewrite, I really think the spectrasonics atmosphere -> omnisphere transition exemplifies many of the perils. The resulting software by most reports seems to be great (I haven't used it myself), but the delay was tremendous and unpredictable, it sounds like it was a really expensive process, and it generated a lot of unhappy customers and probably lost business in the process, from e.g. intel mac users who bought something else instead of atmosphere. Perhaps they've recovered much of their good-will and customers by now, but the even worse case is where all this happens, and the resulting software is a bug-riddled disaster on the first release of the rewrite.

Macrostructure · Post by **Macrostructure** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:31 pm

tylenol wrote:Completely rewriting mature software from scratch is almost always a horrible software engineering mistake, for many reasons. Even in cases where it is necessary, it drastically increases the time to the next update, and it is very expensive. Even though the story is that they had no choice but to do a rewrite, I really think the spectrasonics atmosphere -> omnisphere transition exemplifies many of the perils. The resulting software by most reports seems to be great (I haven't used it myself), but the delay was tremendous and unpredictable, it sounds like it was a really expensive process, and it generated a lot of unhappy customers and probably lost business in the process, from e.g. intel mac users who bought something else instead of atmosphere. Perhaps they've recovered much of their good-will and customers by now, but the even worse case is where all this happens, and the resulting software is a bug-riddled disaster on the first release of the rewrite.

agree with that too. so do you think software getting ever more bulky with layer after layer of work-arounds and hacks over the top of some geriatric old core code is inevitable? serious question by the way. and at what point do you start again? what legitimately precipitates that?

leedsquietman · Post by **leedsquietman** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:55 pm

It doesn't matter if the updates and new versions are longer - Apple needed 3 years to update Logic 7 to 8. The only loss is the revenue stream for the company but Live users are very loyal and should be prepared to wait.

Eventually we needed to replace a coal fired steam engine with a fuel combustion engine, you could still get places on a steam engine but imagine arriving at your destination late and covered in soot from your vehicle. Imagine if home computer/personal computer upgrades stopped with the Commodore 64 - I could run spreadsheets and word processors on it, I could play games and use it for MIDI. It was cool and functional. But I would never have been able to have an integrated audio and MIDI setup.

It is inevitable that if Live is to mature, it will need a rewrite form scratch sooner rather than later. And then it will be buggy for a couple of years afterwards. I can tell you from the Cubase experience though, that people grumbled for a long time but by the time they were at SX3, and the core functionality of the program was much better, with features that went beyond what could be dreamd of in VST, that very few people even mention it now. It too would not allow previous versions files to be used and alienated a lot of people at first, but after a couple of years and a couple of versions, it was much better.

dcease · Post by **dcease** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Macrostructure wrote:
tylenol wrote:Completely rewriting mature software from scratch is almost always a horrible software engineering mistake, for many reasons. Even in cases where it is necessary, it drastically increases the time to the next update, and it is very expensive. Even though the story is that they had no choice but to do a rewrite, I really think the spectrasonics atmosphere -> omnisphere transition exemplifies many of the perils. The resulting software by most reports seems to be great (I haven't used it myself), but the delay was tremendous and unpredictable, it sounds like it was a really expensive process, and it generated a lot of unhappy customers and probably lost business in the process, from e.g. intel mac users who bought something else instead of atmosphere. Perhaps they've recovered much of their good-will and customers by now, but the even worse case is where all this happens, and the resulting software is a bug-riddled disaster on the first release of the rewrite.
agree with that too. so do you think software getting ever more bulky with layer after layer of work-arounds and hacks over the top of some geriatric old core code is inevitable? serious question by the way. and at what point do you start again? what legitimately precipitates that?

serious answer...when the majority of users stop upgrading, and find other solutions for their personal workflow.
live cannot be everything to everyone, and cannot cater to each person's needs/desires. so if live doesn't work for you, don't use it, as opposed to bitching how it doesn't cater to some perceived niche usage that will make it the end-all, be-all solution, for you.
wishing it did this or that, is kinda pointless, and really left for the wishlist forum, as opposed to "spamming" the general forum, imo. i get along fine with live, and, although sometimes frustrated with some limitations, tend to just go with it. live is very capable, and i'd imagine many, many users are happy with it, albeit, with their own personal niggles aside. otherwise, how could it have gotten to where it is? so if live completely rewrote their code, i'd prolly check it out, but since live 7 *generally* works for me, that's what i'd stick with.

now live's midi timing/sync is a different story

Mr-Bit · Post by **Mr-Bit** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:12 pm

good points all thanks Macro

There is also the subject of devaluation of music
through piracy and mass saturation of mp3 dl on
the market for me the solution is to develop
a live show.

So all my efforts are from that perspective I try to
create a track so it first fits a live format then I
can allways studio mix/polish later,I dont like
reverse engineering a studio track into a
live version.

My santa list is

recording automaton to clips ,
osc ,
foldertracks sorry inline mixer of little use,
flexible parameters 128,
seemless intergration back and fourth between arr and sesh,
more loop capabilities
modulation matrix
more follow action
easy loop on loop
anything to make hardware control better
dual screen
seperatable clip grid with clip size for touch screens
seperatable multi track display

if they can squeeze all that in by v 10 without a major overhaul great

dcease · Post by **dcease** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:28 pm

Mr-Bit wrote:If which is proberbly true recording automation
to session clips is not implemented in V8
i will not be upgrading.

and i think this is where we are all spoilt... sure it would be nice, and being able to change parameters easily is something many of us have grown to rely on too much. by recording the clip into another track, you will have all your automation reflected, but unable to tweek some more. personally, i think it makes you have to commit to stuff, which isn't such a bad thing, and really lends to the live aspect of it. sometimes tough choices have to be made, regardless of how we feel about it/wish it would be. musicians/engineers/producers ten, twenty, thirty, forty years ago would have loved to have what we have and yet they still wrote plenty of good tunes<shrugs shoulders>

Mr-Bit · Post by **Mr-Bit** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:35 pm

Yeah I will still use live just with extra tracks and no undo

REC AUTOMATION TO SESSION LIVE REWRITE?

Live Rewrite